Shiite

Search


Advertisements
 

Who's Online

We have 31 guests online
Yazid bin Muawiya Remembered in Makkah PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 13 May 2007
On 11th May 2007, in his Friday sermon from the holy city of Makkah, a few feet from the door of the Ka'bah, where the consciousness of the presence of Allah should be felt at heart, the leader of the congregation emphasised the need for being bound by an allegiance to an "Imam" (a ruler) even if he is vicious. He claimed that the Prophet has said, whoever dies without being bound by an allegiance to an "Imam" (a ruler), dies the death of ignorance.

Even if the "Imam" is unjust and tyrannical, the believers must obey him as Ibn Taymiyyah (the guru of the Wahhabis) has required. He said, they can advise the "Imam" and guide him!!!

Quoting Abdullah ibn Umar's hadiths in Sahih Muslim, he said that when people wanted to rise against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, he stopped them because the Prophet had prohibited breaking the pledge given to an "Imam". When a companion wanted to rise against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, in the incidence of Hurra, Abdullah ibn Umar warned him that pledges are not given to be broken and that he had heard the Prophet saying that if anyone dies without being bound by an allegiance, dies the death of ignorance.

Hence, according to the Wahhabite rationale, allegiance to Yazid was a requirement of the Shari'ah! The leader of the congregation did not explain, what would be the position of those who broke the allegiance given in Ghadir? He did not explain why didn't Abdullah ibn Umar remember these alleged hadiths of the Prophet when he himself did not pay oath of allegiance to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, but felt the need to pay allegiance to a corrupt, irreligious and fasiq ruler like Yazid, who was imposed on the Muslims by his father. He did not explain what about the widely narrated mutawatir hadith of the Prophet which says "there is no obedience to the creatures in disobedience to Allah"? He did not explain that in the incidence of Hurra many Companions of the Prophet in Madina were slaughtered and thousands of their virgin daughters were rapped by the troopers of Yazid. To remain indifferent to a massacre of such a magnitude was like writing off the religious values that the Messenger of Allah (SAWW) had brought. But this is precisely the leader of the congregation was advising the worshippers.


Comments (67)
1. Written by jafar zaidi on 22-07-2007 10:57
 
 
this shows yazid is father of all wahabis(munafik)
  
2. Written by HUSSAIN on 23-07-2007 09:31
 
 
SALAM ALIAKUM 
KEEP IT UP WRITE THESE TYPE OF COMMENT AND SHOW THE ACTUAL FACE OF THE LEADER
  
3. Written by Irfan bin Ghalib. on 24-07-2007 05:29
 
 
Abd'Allah bin Omer din't gave his Allegiance to Ali,it is upto mark but it was during when Ali was being nominated not nominated,ibn omer does not oppose him after Ali was elected as Imam.He din'nt even took part in the battle's of siffin etc. but in the matter Yazid he was already elected as a Imam of the muslims more than 60 high ranked sahaba had nominated him along with the people of syria,and other provinces,thats why ibn omer opposes to rebel against Yazid.One of the sahabi who gives the Aligiance to Yazid was Amr ibn A'as the son-in-Law of Prophet,most of the sahabi who had given alligiance to yazid was highly ranked and much older than Imam Hussain too.
  
4. Written by Abd'Allah. on 24-07-2007 06:03
 
 
I'm impressed with the reply of irfan bin Ghalib.The shia's of kufaa they written 12000 letter of alligiance and made an oath to suppoet Hussain(r) during his rebel against Yazid.there was not a shia stood beside hussain at the site of Karbala when he was in danger.when ibn ziyaad enter into kufa when he was appointed as governor of kufa he entered into the city only with 17 members,Hussain entered with 72. What happened to the shias of kufa.what make them frightened.A true muslim never frightened with any one.then what make them,The Actual Killers of Hussain is the people of kufa,the fore father of present Shia's. During one of Imam Malik's classes, it was mentioned that the raafidi Shia curse the sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." (48:29) He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahâbah are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks." (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)  
Imam Abu Haneefah: It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the Raafidi Shia; "Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief.
  
5. Written by Ali bin hussain. on 24-07-2007 06:09
 
 
It is about them that Imâm Ja‘far is reported to have said: "No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us." Imâm Ja‘far is also reported as having said: "No verse did Allâh reveal in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in those who profess Shî‘ism." [9]  
Before Sayyidunâ Hussain, his elder brother Sayyidunâ Hasan was the victim of the treacherousness of the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent Shî‘î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the following remark of Sayyidunâ Hasan: "By Allâh, I think Mu‘âwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shî‘ah." [10]  
 
When Sayyidunâ Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shî‘ah, he decided to make peace with Mu‘âwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the Shî‘ah by concluding peace with Mu‘âwiyah, he responded by saying:  
"By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh decides between us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us." [11]  
 
Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja‘far, and the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî‘ah, describes them in the following words:  
 
"If I had to truly distinguish my Shî‘ah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinize them I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: " We are the Shî‘ah of ‘Alî."  
 
When the names of Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah, ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd, ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d and Shamir ibn Dhil Jawshan are mentioned and curses invoked upon their memories, then let us not forget the treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah. The time has long been due for the Shî‘ah to reintroduce into their ‘Âshûrâ ceremonies an aspect that was in fact part of the very first commemoration ceremony of the Tawwâbûn. That lost aspect is the admission of their own guilt, along with that of Ibn Ziyâd, Yazîd and others, in the shedding of the holy blood of Sayyidunâ Hussain ibn ‘Alî radiyallâhu ‘anhumâ.
  
6. Written by Hamza Naqvi on 31-07-2007 04:42
 
 
AMAZING ! Great to read comments from non-shias. Interesting to find out that there are so many out there visiting & reading from our sites. That's the first step in finding out the Truth. May God help them in their efforts. 
Coming to the article, thanks for such a thought-provoking article. It really signifies how much love non-shias pay to the words of the Holy Prophet to such an extent that their interpretation starts contradicting with Quran itself, & also without realizing that the family of the Prophet comes above everything. It is what precisely Allah ordered in Quran (42:23) "Say [O Prophet]: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives". Was anyone more closer to the Prophet (PBUH) than Ali, Fatima, Hasan & Hussain (aliahum assalam)? Actions of Imams are nothing nothing nothing but what Allah wants.  
 
Don't the 'followers of Prophet' realize that such was the extent of Yazid's ugliness that a personality like Hussain (as) had to rise! Who gave not only his life, but his children, his most beloved companions, & his family members in the way of Allah!  
 
Supporting of Muawiya by the 'followers of Prophet' is itself difficult to understand. But when it comes to Yazid, I cry blood. You need only be a Human being with a heart, to curse Yazid and all his supporters. Yazid (curse of God be on him & all those who stood against Hussain) had nothing of Islam in him. If Muslims consider Yazid to be the Imam/ruler bound to be followed (as that Saudi was refering), then they has used the Quran only for Tarawih, and not understood the very fundamentals of Islam. Standing up against the oppressor, against somebody who is destroying Islam, is a true Jihad. Quran is filled with so many of such instances! It just takes an open minded glance. 
 
Hussain (as) saved Islam through his sacrifice. Bi abi anta wa ummi, ya Aba Abdillah (My father and mother be sacrificed on you, O Hussain). O Hussain! You saved the prophetic mission which was going to be destroyed into pieces! 
 
((Allahumma Ajil li waliyikal Faraj, wal A'fiata wan Nasr)) O Allah! we are waiting for our Imame Zamana. Hasten his reappearance. Ameen
  
7. Written by Syed Mohsin Hasan Naqvi on 03-08-2007 07:01
 
 
""Even if the "Imam" is unjust and tyrannical, the believers must obey him as Ibn Taymiyyah (the guru of the Wahhabis) has required. He said, they can advise the "Imam" and guide him!!!""  
 
What can be said after such an illogical comment. Perhaps this is what this person's ISLAM is but definitely not mine. 
 
MAY ALLAH PUT THESE PEOPLE WITH THEIR LEADERS(MUAWIYAH AND YAZID) AND US WITH OUR IMAM HUSSAIN (A.S) BE HI WRONG (GOD FORBID)..INSHALLAH
  
8. Written by ibn marwan. on 03-08-2007 09:07
 
 
im am very much surprised by comments such as allowing tyrants to rule in our midst and remaining loyal to these tyrants. history has a long list of examples to show that tyrants always fall from their pedestals, if not... their legacies are lost forever (for your information, can anyone pinpoint where the tomb/grave of haroun ar rashid is now? or where the tomb of yazeed is? or are there still umayyads descendants who proudly proclaim their so-called legacy. none would dare, for to be called a progeny of murderers is shameful indeed. even for amawis who became shias (they dread to tell their children that thier forefather killed hussein)). 
 
HISTORY TELLS US THAT TYRANTS ONLY LIVE TO ABUSE PEOPLE, BUT IN DEATH, THEIR LEGACIES ARE LOST AND PEOPLE ONLY LIVE TO CURSE THEIR MEMORY. 
 
dont blame the shias for cursing the murderers of bibi fatima (AS), or Ali asghar, or the baby of Imam Hussein (as) in Karbala. it is the least they can do.  
 
IF THE SUNNI READER HAD THE SENSE TO READ MORE.....HE WOULD HAVE WISHED HE NEVER SAID WORDS THAT WOULD HURT IMAM ZAMANS ADHERENTS.
  
9. Written by Haider Zaidi on 03-08-2007 10:52
 
 
I am am at all surprised by the Wahabi views on Yadiz . Wahabi have a living Imam . He is George W Bush .
  
10. Written by Shikoh on 06-08-2007 17:43
 
 
Look, Irfan bin Ghalib, Abd'Allah and Ali bin Husain.  
 
I will try to use simple sentences in the hope that you might understand. 
 
Traffic laws of the UK are good. Lots of Britons are law abiding citizens. However, there are some who are not law-abiding citizens of the UK. They are citizens of UK all right, but still, they break the laws of the UK. Now when they break the laws of the UK, are they no more UK citizens? 
 
I would think they still are. 
 
And tell me – are they bad citizens – do they break the traffic laws – because the traffic laws of the UK are bad? 
 
I would like to think not. 
 
It is not the traffic laws of the UK that are to blame. It is the people who do not abide by those traffic laws that are to blame. 
 
Now. 
 
The "shias" of Kufa were "shias" all right. They never came to help Imam Husain (A).  
 
True. They were bad shias. Just like the law-breaking citizens of UK, who are citizens of the UK nevertheless. 
 
So it is not shia-ism, if you will, to blame. It is those bad shias who do not follow its laws that are to blame. 
 
Dig? 
 
Now try to understand what the other Imams that you have quoted meant. 
 
They said that there are/were shias, but that there are/were bad shias - such as those of Kufa. So they were the apostates that the Imams were referring to. And the handful that would be left after “thorough sifting” that were being referred to in the Imams’ hadis that you have quoted, would be the 72 loyal companions of Imam Husain. 
 
You may call them, the good citizens of the then-Arabia. 
 
Ok? 
 
Now, let's go a bit further from here. 
 
Remember, the Imams said, as you quote, that after sifting through shias, they would be left with only a handful of good shias. May be one in a thousand. 
 
Because the shias apostacy, as you highlight, was reflected in the fact that they did not come to the aid of Imam Husain whom they proclaimed to support. 
 
Because they were hypocrites. 
 
Now tell me: 
 
The Imams, as you have quoted, said "my shias". 
 
Did they per chance mention any "my sunnis"? 
 
"my wahabis"? or the like? 
 
Now let's see ... 
 
Perhaps because none of the other sects were "theirs" to be called "my" ... 
 
Perhaps, they didn't even consider the others to be of significance at all ... 
 
Perhaps they didn't even think that the others were within the folds of true Islam at all ... 
 
Because, if they said shias were bad ... then ... did they mention any sect that they preferred? Did they suggest an alternative? That they recommended? That they said: "Shias are bad. So follow ABCD sect"? 
 
Hm? 
 
Did they say that? 
 
But they said, only a handful true shias would be left, if they sifted through them thoroughly. Therefore, only those handful shias – and not any other sect – were the righteous followers/adherents of Islam. 
 
Now you see? You’ve got to believe what the implications of their statements are because you want us to believe the same statements of the same Imams that you quoted and which I am using to help you understand how you help corner yourselves. How you muck up your own arguments. 
 
Now let's go on a little further. 
 
Shias are bad. They were bad even before. Let’s accept that implication of yours. 
If you agree that the Quran comes first, then what about the verse (42:23) quoted by Hamza Naqvi in one of the aforementioned posts? 
 
Do you hold anything above the Quran? That is a “la raib” book! Come on. 
 
And then ... 
 
By any chance ... did your forefathers go over to ... forget about helping Husain ... I say forget it because your Saudi Imam says it was against the principles of allegiance to the “then Imam” Yazid ... so ... did your forefathers go over to at least help bury the dead bodies of the household of the Prophet? 
 
The shias were bad all right. They didn’t. 
 
Did you or yours? 
 
I mean, Imam Husain and his companions may not have pledged allegiance to that satanic imam of yours of that time, but humanity demands that at least the bodies of the dead be buried ... properly … and not be run over by horses and then have their heads cut off with blunt blades and then raised up on spears and swords ... 
 
Hey! They were the Prophet's household ... your imam could have been shown at least some leniency ... just some … 
 
… 
 
So, do you by any chance, any fairness of heart ... by any sense of humanity … denounce at least that much deed of your imam? 
 
Do you at least condemn that “bit” of barbarity of your Imam/Khalifa Yazid? 
 
Ok. 
 
Let's take it for a while, according to your Saudi Imam's explanation, that the grandson of the prophet blasphemed against the fornicator, Yazid. 
 
But what about the women of Imam Husain's "battlegroup"? 
 
What argument or hadis does your Saudi Imam, or you yourself, give to justify regarding snatching the pious ladies’ veils; burning their tents; blocking ANY kind of water supply; banishing them from the land that Imam Husain had bought – and therefore owned – a few days before your Imam Yazid's "holy" massacre; being chained head to toe; and then being ridden on camel back across the treacherous deserts and bazaars of Arabia – all the way from Karbala to Damascus??? 
 
And what about those under-ten-years-of-age children? 
 
Any hadis to support that kind of treatment to prisoners-of-war? 
 
Or are a few hadis being dug up from the sands by your Saudi Imams? May be on some bone that never got unearthed in all this time? 
 
Ah! Let's cut to the chase. 
 
Doesn't the same religion that you claim to subscribe to, forbid you from harming women and children before, during and after warfare? 
 
Hmm … 
 
I suddenly recall – yes, recall – that I am wasting my time. 
 
So let’s end it this way … Your religion to yourself. Ours to ours! 
 
See you with your Imam. 
 
See us with ours. 
 
God willing. 
 
(And you Ali bin Husain, I don’t even believe that’s your true name. You are just using it to make an impression and entry on this forum. Let me tell you what – use your real name and your comments will still be published. I’m sure this web site won’t chicken out like your Dr Bilal Philips’ web site where they don’t publish any anti anti-shia comments! Remember what that kid of Lebanon said when the Israelis were bombing his cities in 2006? He stood on the rubble of a building describing the carnage and in response to the BBC reporter’s question whether he was afraid [of death] he said: “We are sons of Imam Husain (A). We don’t fear [death].” That, my friends, was pretty akin and reminiscent of the scene of Karbala. Yazid’s army/Israeli’s air force attacking hapless people mercilessly, burning their tents/bombing their houses and those hapless people saying: Inna lillah he wa …!)
  
11. Written by Abbas Alamdar on 06-08-2007 18:42
 
 
Salam  
 
Mashallah , Beautiful Article by Mr. Hasan Shikoh... I dont have anything to say.. The articles says it all... May Allah Bless You 
 
Regards  
 
ALAM.D.
  
12. Written by Mohamed on 07-08-2007 06:05
 
 
I am not at all surprised at how some of these sunni brothers have written ugly things about imams and ayatollahs. All I can say is that may Allah guide them to the right path and may they see the truth that is for all to see. Closed minds can only think and speak ugly things cos they do not have a capacity beyond that to think and analyse facts to get to the truth. But I defy the sunni brothers to read the book "Peshawar Nights" to get the right prospect of shias and their beleif is all about. Let it be clear that we shias do not beleive in anything that is against the quran nor do we take as our leaders anybody who is against the laws of Islam and Allah. How can a leader of Islam be against the laws of Allah and be regarded as an Islamic ruler? What kind of logic is that? I will tell you. This kind of logic and laws are propagated and enforced on the people when their leaders have become corrupt and disobey the laws of Allah openly and they need to strengthen their hold on the people. They do this by altering and manufacturing false hadiths of the prophets through the help of corrupt religious leaders and imams.
  
13. Written by semi_canada on 10-08-2007 15:37
 
 
bismillAh, what could anyone say, afterall Allah SWT blinded them and left their hands to Shaytaan (wahabees, yazeed lovers) !!!! let them be, lakum deenekum waliyaddeen
  
14. Written by Asad on 11-08-2007 04:19
 
 
La'natullah on Yazid, the dog and son of a dog, la'natullah on all the people who accept yazid, may Allah curse him and pinish himfor eternity, The most hated personality in the world, words cannot describe how disgusting and wretched this animal was. Curses on him. May Allah keep Imam Hussains victory alive.
  
15. Written by ramzan on 13-08-2007 05:28
 
 
The sermon by the wahabi guru and some of the various comments above prove that both Hussainis and Yazidis are still alive and the fight between TRUTH (HAQ) and FALSEHOOD (BATIL) is ongoing. This will only be resolved by the 12th Imam (may Allah hasten his re-appearance) who is also referred to as \"AT-TAALIBU BIDAMIL MAQTULI BI-KARBALA\" (the one who will avenge the blood of the martyrs of Karbala).  
 
This is one of the reasons why the LA\'AN does not stop for the killers and the torturers in Karbala on 61 A.H. but also goes on to \"LA\'ANALLAHU UMMATAN SAMI-AT BIZAALIKA FARAZIYAT BIHI\" (which means Curse of Allah on those who heard about the atrocities and are happy).  
 
The slogan \"KULLU YAWMIN ASHURA, KULLU ARDHIN KARBALA\" is vibrant and each one of us can decide which IMAM to pay allegiance to.  
 
See you on the day of judgement when everyone will be raised with his IMAM (\"YAWMA NAD-OO KULLA INASIN BI-IMAMIHIM\").  
 
May Allah keep us among the true followers Imam Hussain.
  
16. Written by Wissam on 17-08-2007 11:53
 
 
Just a note to Abdullah above, the comments attributed to Imam Abu Haneefa are most likely fabrications by Ibn Taymiyya. 
 
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/cursing_sahaba/en/chap6.php 
 
Ibn Taymiyya himself was accused of hypocrisy by other sunni scholars for hatred Ali ibn abi Talib (as) so that should come as no surprise. 
 
http://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/ibn_taymiyya.htm 
 
As far as supporting tyrants whoever they are, the shia at least have a hadith of the Prophet(SAWA)that goes \'Whoever volunteers to back an oppressor, knowing that he was thus, he be outside the pale of Islam\'.
  
17. Written by Ibn Ismail Al-Islam on 20-09-2007 06:58
 
 
May Allah SWT bless Saidina Abu Bakar RA,Saidina Umar RA,Saidina Utsman RA,Saidina Ali ibn Abi Thalib RA,Muawiya RA,Yazid ibn Muawiya and all the Sahabahs...BarakAllahufik =)
  
18. Written by Ibn Ismail Al-Islam on 20-09-2007 07:00
 
 
May Allah SWT bless all of Rasulullah SAW's wife...JazakAllah!
  
19. Written by Wissam on 08-10-2007 21:12
 
 
Can I just say to everyone the importance of remembering that the real Ahl us-Sunnah revere Imam Hussain(as) and do not bless Yazid. See this interesting article by sunni brothers in the UK.  
 
http://www.minhajuk.org/artikelen.php?parent_id=1138676533 
 
Yazid ibn Muawiya wasn't a companion of the Prophet (SAWA) so there's no need to defend him. 
 
In fact many of the Sahaba who gave their allegiance to Yazid later rose up against him in Mecca and Medina when they heard the news of Kerbala and were martyred doing so. So they did fight their "imam" and God bless them for standing up to him. 
 
The Prophet and the imams always warned about those who would try to split the muslim ummah from within so be aware of them. Selam
  
20. Written by Ali Reza on 02-11-2007 03:14
 
 
to Shikoh.... 
hello brother Shikoh ur earlier posting was grt.. 
i really love it....and i appreciate ur hard work and the time u spent on it and the initiative u have taken to answer them... 
further more to all of my shia brothers... 
we r shias and proud to be shias so dont walk in the path of our borthers who have gone astray. answer to there questions in a decent way so as to explain them the truth. 
u cannot get anything from insulting them, it will further exagerate them.. 
after all we r not Yazidis. 
may ALLAH showers his blessings on all shias
  
21. Written by who is yazid ? on 12-11-2007 05:27
 
 
was yazid a muslem?
  
22. Written by Syed Fasih on 14-11-2007 14:38
 
 
I don't wana talk about Yazid but i wana say only one thing: Why Hazrat Zainab(R)said like that"One Nation will self bitting till Qyamat and i will not frgive them". Pls think on this Hadees sharif
  
23. Written by waqas on 30-11-2007 19:23
 
 
dont make all that happened religion, that was political war beteen two influential groups. 
nothing to do with islam.
  
24. Written by mohsin Jamil on 02-12-2007 18:46
 
 
Salam Shikoh,  
This is my first post to any blog. You just forced me to write. May Allah Bless you. I just loved the way you wrote. 
 
May Allah help you at every step of your life and give you more knoweldeg. 
Allah Hafiz
  
25. Written by Kazmi on 03-12-2007 20:42
 
 
Nice article  
Wahabies = Jews,  
 
aghh . - // .. dese ppl living in the world of ignorance still, u dun hv to be a nasibi if ur father was one - think urself - use logic , wat materail do u study , how r u brought up. ..  
 
you claim to be muslims  
who u would u support 
 
the prophet of islam Muhammed (PBUH) and his family Sayyada Zahra (sa) Imam Ali (as). Imam Hassan (as) Imam Hussain (as) and his descendants. (\"O Allah, please shower your blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad\") 
 
 
 
 
OR  
 
 
THE Adultress, prositute. cannibal woman Hind bint Utbah - 4 men claimed to be the  
father of Muawiya ha  
muawiya bin abi sufiyan ? ha r u sure .  
may allah curse him  
may allah curse yazeed  
 
MAY ALLA CURSE MUAWIYAZ AND YAZEEDS SUPPORTERS -  
 
 
 
 
THINK ! the above could be enugh for a wise mind
  
26. Written by razia sayeda on 08-12-2007 10:02
 
 
Ibn Ismail Al-Islam 
For God\'s sake remov e Ali ibne Abi Talib from the list of your khjalifas and imams. He is OURS.
  
27. Written by Ali on 15-12-2007 16:49
 
 
JazakAllah guys, lets pray to Allah for the tawfiq to guide in a calm and collected manner. We do not need to patronise, subhanAllah many of us were blessed by Allah to be born Shias, lets not drive others away with our behaviour and reactions. Please read Ayatullah Sistani's message of unity. We need to take heed of this and be the leaders among maintaining such unity, Allah willing.
  
28. Written by Gulzar on 23-12-2007 19:06
 
 
One question to Muslim brothers. Was Yazid Sunni or Shia? Before reply please keep in mind that if he was follower of first three caliphs then he was Sunni and if he was follower of 4th caliph then he was Shia. Answer will itself answer who were killers  
of Hazrat Imam Hussain.
  
29. Written by Aftab Kazmi on 23-12-2007 20:23
 
 
MY BROTHER GULZAR far from being a sunni or shia - you might be young or u might be lackin information - doesnt matter ur bro is here to provide u with the info -  
 
YAZID WAS A KAFIR 
 
AND THOSE TRYING TO Hide his deeds R KAFIRS 
 
 
 
 
Hadith of the Prophet(saw) : ''Yuhsharu al-mar'u(al-insan) ma'a man ahab'' ''Man will be resurrected on the Day of Judgement with those whom he loves.'' 
Sunni sources : Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Vol. 3 page 336 
Hadith No. 14644, Al-Tabarani Hadith No. 8953 ; Ibn Asakir Hadith No. 2427) 
 
 
Sunni Sources say : Yazid was a fasiq (transgressor) a fajir(a debaucher, a person who leads a life of promiscuity) a drunkard, ''mal'oon'(accursed) and a 'kafir'. He drank wine(shaaribul khamr). He kept dogs. He abandoned salat. He did not believe in the revelation of the Qur'an. He burned the Ka'ba. He inaugurated his 'dawla'(kingdom) with the killing of Shahid al-Husain( a.s.), the grandson of the Prophet(saw) and closed it with the catastrophe of 'Al-Harra'(the event when Madina was ransacked for three days in which thousands of the Shuhada of Badr were slaughtered and so many women were raped ). In 'Asma al Khulafa biography of Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah Allama Ibn Hazm writes, ''His abomination went to such an extent that when Yazid's army attacked Madina, their horses urinated in the Mosque of the Messenger of Allah, and also in Riyad al Jannah. 
 
 
Allah - his angels and his servants us ---- 
we all curse yazid n his supporters. 
 
 
meri jaan gulzar 
YA ALI MADAD
  
30. Written by Kazmi on 23-12-2007 21:08
 
 
SALAM momins 
 
as we all know - another yazidi have emerged Dr. Zakir yazeed naik - who have called karbala a political battle -  
 
Allah curses yazeed and his supporters 
 
click the link below 
 
http://hasnain.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/open-letter-to-zakir-naik/#comment-4562
  
31. Written by Sajjad Haider on 16-01-2008 12:36
 
 
YA ALI MADAT Aslaam Brothers and Sisters well done to Shikoh for highlighting to fellow brothers the points mentioned the prophet said nearer his time am leaving behid 2 things the quran n ahlul bait those who hold on to these tightly will neva go astray n let alone we can never orget karbala as mullah husain saved islam from the tryant yazid lanaat bishyamr upon him till enternity may mollah guide as all inshallah alah hafiz ya ali madat
  
32. Written by Muhammad Faridi on 17-01-2008 21:05
 
 
I am a Muslim, neither a shia nor sunni. Yes, i was brought up as a sunni but i have learnt a few facts during the course of these past few years and that is ANY BODY and i mean anybody, who has opposed the Ahlal Bait (alaihis salawat waassalaam) is NOT A MUSLIM. I do not agree to many practices of both sunni and shia brothers, may Allah guide us all. Just ask yourselves, all those who have sided the laeen Yazid and his followers; that on the Day of Judgement, on whose side would you prefer to rise with? Rasool Allah and his Ahlal Bait (PBUH&HP)or Yazid? or anyone for that matter. I dont know what the real history is and who said what and how it was written by the historians but this one fact is the acid test of a true muslim, what is clear and without any doubt. May Allah help us and unite us and forgive us of our sins
  
33. Written by aik musalmaan(Ya Allah Madad!) on 19-01-2008 06:03
 
 
Assalam-o-alaikum all brothers and sisters in islam. 
 
Shame on all of you…. 
 
world is almost come to its end…waiting for the latest signs…waiting for Hazrat-e-Imam-e-mehdi (raziallah-o-ta’ala anhu) and hazrat-e-Essa (alaih-e-salato wasalam)…and look at your comments…you people seems very well prepared for the end of times…very well done!! 
 
It seems you people have taken the reponsibility of (Na’ozobillah) Allah subhana wata’ala and the Prophets. Showing the right path to each other. Thing to be regretted is that the mistakes whoever did in past has been injected in our youth who has to face the most critical time of this world, since Allah has created it. Are you people waiting for some miracle that will prove one of us the most righteous people in Islam or waiting for Imam Mahdi to tell us. If you people can’t tolerate each other then, for God sake, don’t talk to each other. Leave everything on the day of judgment. But if you people want to fill the gap with the name of Allah (swt), the Prophet (saw) and the Quran, then..in the name of Allah..tolerate each other. 
 
Please stop calling names to our beloved ashabs…and stop calling kafir if someone put more importance to some of our very own beloved personalities. 
 
Can’t we forget whatever happened wrong in the past. We have nothing to prove impartially that can satisfy both sects about who was right and who was wrong…except…Quran and Sunnah. Can’t we initiate once again from coming back of Holy Prophet (saw) from “the Cave of Hira” till he performed hajj and the Last Greatest Sermon. 
 
Believe me we are very good Muslims if restrict ourselves to that period when all of our personalities were a single unit…the follower of Islam…the follower of Prophet (saw). 
 
I believe in one thing…there is nothing wrong in the relation of our Khulfa-e-Rashideen (ra) (all the four), the ummahat-ul-mominin (ra) and all other sahaba-e-karam (ra). It was other people weaker in their emaan who made this conflict and, Allah knows better, i believe it was the mischievous act of yahood-o-nasara who always tried to split Muslims...and look...they succeeded. It was their revenge and look...how foolish are we…how weaker are we in our kafiat-e-emaan…we make them succeeded. 
 
“Congratulation kuffar you succeeded in reverting the battle won by our beloved Holy Prophet (saw) against you.” 
 
Lets see what is going to happen with all of us…I will pray for our children whom are we now putting in trouble just like our elders did to us. 
 
May Allah show us the right path, and, May Allah stood all of us...on the Day of Judgment...with Muhammad RasulAllah (saw)…Amin
  
34. Written by SYED on 29-01-2008 11:00
 
 
Clarifiction of Dr.Zakir Naik's Statement on Yazeed 
Monday, 01.07.2008, 10:49am (GMT) 
 
 
Clarifiction of Dr.zakir Naik's statement on Yazeed 
 
 
27th December, 2007  
 
PRESS RELEASE 
 
 
 
(As Dr. Zakir Naik was on Hajj Pilgrimage and returned on 26th Dec. 2007 he could not respond and clarify to the issue raised earlier).  
 
This is in reference to a question and answer session in a recent programme on 2nd Dec. 2007 by Dr. Zakir Naik. One of the Non Muslim questioners posed a question with regards to the battle of Karbala and Yazeed, to which Dr. Zakir’s response evoked strong criticism from a certain group of the Muslim community because he said “May Allah be pleased with him” after the name of Yazeed and referred to Karbala as a political war.  
 
1. A minority of the minority community i.e. the KSI (Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat) blew this issue out of proportion thinking that they caught Dr. Zakir on the wrong-foot. They thought that the whole of Muslim Ummah had a unanimous opinion against Yazeed. However, they did not know that there is a difference of opinion in the Ummah regarding Yazeed.  
 
Irrespective of the difference of opinion on this issue in Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah yet it is unanimously agreed that one can say RadhiAllahu Anhu (May Allah be please with him) for Yazeed.  
 
As you are aware that Dr. Zakir has a large fan following from all the sects of Muslim Ummah including Isna Ashari, Khojas, Bohris etc. The Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat could not tolerate the Shias getting influenced by Dr. Zakir’s talks.  
 
Desperate attempts were made to instigate the whole of Muslim Ummah against Dr. Zakir Naik by publicizing the matter in all possible manners.  
 
The Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat in Mumbai is misleading the masses by making it appear as though Dr. Zakir Naik has made Yazeed into a Hero. Infact Yazeed is not a Hero for Dr. Zakir Naik.  
 
2. In order to maintain the unity in the Muslim Ummah, Dr. Zakir Naik expresses his sincere regret and said, “I regret if unintentionally any person or section of the people’s feelings have been hurt due to any statement made by me.” He also does the same while giving da’wah to Christians and Hindus. He regrets hurting the Muslims unintentionally but that does not mean what he has said is wrong.  
 
3. Any knowledgeable Muslim whenever he takes the name of any “Sahabah” (companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) or Taba’een (next generation after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) his name is followed by RadiAllahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him) or Rahmatullahi Alaih (May Allah’s mercy be on him).  
Thus Dr. Zakir Naik after mentioning the name of Yazeed, who is a Taba’een, he followed his name with (May Allah be pleased with him). To pray for the Muslims is also instructed by Allah (swt) in the Glorious Qur’an – 98:8, 9:100 and 58:22.  
 
Neither did Dr. Zakir praise Yazeed nor did he curse him. He did not comment on his actions. He only said “Yazeed (May Allah be pleased with him)” since he does not consider Yazeed to be a Kafir and it is allowed to pray for the believers as Abraham (pbuh) too prayed for all the believers in the Glorious Qur’an - 14:41.  
 
4. The Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat claims that the whole of Muslim Ummah condemns the statement of Dr. Zakir. Who are the people the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat mentions as ‘Muslim Ummah’? Do the views of the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat represent the view of the Muslim Ummah? Do they have the fatawas of all the cross section of Muslims, especially the Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-Jamaat, for their stand? If it is only Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat raking up the controversy, then they are misleading the common masses by saying Muslim Ummah.  
 
There is a difference of opinion as far as the Muslim scholars are concerned regarding Yazeed. Some are neutral and some are against him. Some are even in favour of Yazeed like the revered scholar Imam Ghazaali.  
 
When Imam Ghazaali was asked if it was all right to curse Yazeed, he replied “No”. He was asked was it all right to say “rahimahullah”? He said “Yes it is Mustahab (highly recommended).” [Qaid as Shareed min Akhbar e Yazeed pg 57-59].  
 
Imam Ghazaali further said, “Yazeed was a Muslim and when we pray for the Muslims “Allhummagfirli Muslimineen was Muslimaat (O Allah forgive the Musilms men and women) he is also included in our prayers.” [Qaid as Shareed min Akhbar e Yazeed pg 57-59].  
 
Yazeed was also the commander of the Muslim army, which went to fight the battle of Constantinople, which was predicted by the Prophet (pbuh) himself along with the glad tidings, “Paradise will be granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval operation.” [Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4 Book of Jihad Hadith 2924].  
 
This was a very prominent war as far as the spread of Islam was concerned. There were Sahabah like Hussain Ibn Ali, Abdullah bin Abbas, Ibn Umar and Abu Ayyub Ansari and Abdullah bin Zubair (May Allah be pleased with all of them) who participated and fought under the leadership of Yazeed.  
 
5. As far as the Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-Jamaat is concerned, inspite of the difference of opinion it is agreed upon that it is permissible to say “May Allah have mercy on him” or “May Allah be pleased with him” for Yazeed. Therefore saying “May Allah be pleased with him” after Yazeed’s name is not Haraam, nor a sin and is not wrong.  
 
 
This has been reconfirmed recently in writing from various Darul Ulooms and Islamic Organisations in India.  
 
Fatawas to clarify and support the above stand.  
a) Darul Uloom, Deoband.  
b) Nadwatul Ulema, Lucknow (verbally confirmed on phone, written copy to be received)  
c) Darul Uloom, Barelwi.  
d) Jamaat-e-Islami-i-Hind, New Delhi. (verbally confirmed on phone, written copy to be received)  
e) Darul Uloom Ahmadia Salfia, Darbhanga, Bihar.  
f) Jamiatul-Ahle-Hadith, New Delhi  
g) Aligarh Muslim University  
h) Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi  
i) And several others who have confirmed on phone and are expected to be received in the next couple of days.  
 
Fatawas from scholars outside India:  
1) Shaikh Abdullah Ibn Jibreen (on audio, written copy to be received)  
2) Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyah  
 
Note: Please find attachments of the fatawas mentioned above for your reference.  
 
6. Some people consider “political war” in a negative sense. By saying Karbala was a political war in no way does it mean that it was not a war for Islam or Justice. Many political wars were fought for the sake of Justice and Islam.  
 
Islam is a complete way of life, which also deals with political issues, which should be based on the Qur’an and Hadith.  
 
In his response to the questioner, Dr. Zakir also cited the example of the Battle of Jamal that was fought between the Mother of the Believers, Aaishah (RA) and Ali (RA). The battle took place as a result of difference of opinion on a political issue. We respect and revere both the companions of the prophet (pbuh). However, with regards to the battle of Jamal, we neither favour nor are we against any one of them.  
 
7. We disagree with a certain group of Muslims who hurl abuses on Aaishah (R.A.) and do not consider her from the Ahle Bayt i.e. family of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). However, the Qur’an considers the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) as the members of Ahle Bayt in - 33:32-33.  
 
Moreover, even the wife of Abraham (pbuh) is addressed by Allah (swt) as one among the Ahle Bayt of Abraham (pbuh) in the Glorious Qur’an - 11:72-73.  
 
Furthermore, this same minority Muslim sect also curses the first three caliphs of Islam, Abu Bakr (R.A.), Umar (R.A.) and Uthman (R.A.) as well as the mother of believers Ayesha (R.A.).  
 
8. If Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat tomorrow says don’t say “May Allah be pleased with him”, after the name of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ummul Mumineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with them all) will we stop saying “May Allah be pleased with them”, after their names? Of course not!  
 
As a whole, the majority of the Muslims condemn the act of anyone cursing any of the companions, including the first three caliphs of Islam as well as Ayesha (R.A.) the wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  
 
9. Dr. Zakir Naik did not curse or criticize any Muslim. This same small minority sect of Muslim curse these revered Caliphs of Islam Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (May Allah be pleased with them all), and if they do it the whole Muslim Ummah will condemn them.  
 
The Prophet (pbuh) himself said, “When a man curses anything, the curse goes up to heaven and the gates of heaven are locked against it. Then it comes down to the earth and its gates are locked against it. Then it goes right and left, and if it finds no place of entrance it returns to the thing it was cursed, and if it deserves what was said (it enters it), otherwise it returns to the one who uttered it.”  
[Sunan Abu Dawud Vol.3 Book of Manners Hadith 4887].  
 
Aaishah (R.A.) reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “When your companion dies, leave him and do not revile him.”  
[Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3 Book of Manners Hadith 4881].  
 
Allah will not question us on the Day of Judgement as to why didn’t we hurl abuses on Yazeed even if he deserved it, however Allah will surely hold us accountable if we curse anyone unjustly.  
 
Our salvation does not depend on the issue of Yazeed as every person is responsible for his or her actions.  
 
Allah says in Surah Baqarah, Chapter No. 2, Verse No. 134 & 141.  
 
“That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do.“  
 
10. Dr. Zakir Naik holds the grandsons of the Prophet in high respect and whenever he mentions the name of Hassan (R.A.) and Hussain (R.A.) he follows it with RadiAllahu Anhuma (May Allah be pleased with them).  
 
Dr. Zakir condemns the person who actually killed Hussain (RadiAllahu Anhu) the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) whether he was the person from Yazeed’s army or someone else.  
 
11. Dr. Zakir Naik is held in high regards by millions of Muslims worldwide. There were more than two-hundred thousand people, including Bohras, Shias, Barelwis, Deobandis etc. during his speech and no one amongst them raised the issue, not even a single from more than 20 Islamic scholars from different parts of the world who came to speak at the conference.  
 
This issue has been raised by a few Shias from Pakistan, where raising such kinds of discords are common and later on picked up by the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat in Mumbai.  
 
12. Saying “May Allah be pleased with him” after Yazeed’s name is a minor issue, but cursing the first three caliphs and Ayesha (R.A.) is a much more bigger issue and a grievous sin.  
 
According to Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-Jamaat cursing the first three rightly guided caliphs and the Mother of Believers, Ayesha (R.A.) is a major sin (some scholars go to the extent of saying it is ‘Kufr’ i.e. disbelief while others say it is ‘Fisq’ i.e. grave sin).  
 
If you make a mountain out of a mole hill because of saying “May Allah be pleased with him” for Yazeed then is not cursing the first three rightly guided caliphs of Islam and the Mother of Believers, Ayesha (R.A.) a much more grievous sin?  
 
We want unity among the Muslim Ummah. Is it proper for the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat to continue to create unnecessary discord on a ‘difference of opinion’ amongst Muslims with them?  
 
13. If the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat give in writing that they will not curse the first three caliphs Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Uthman and the Ummul Mumineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with them all) InshaAllah Dr. Zakir Naik will never say RadiAllahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him) after the name of Yazeed since it is optional.  
It is not Dr. Zakir Naik who has a difference of opinion regarding Yazeed, but he is aware that as far as the scholars of the Ahl-e-Sunnat-wa-Jamaat are concerned, there is a difference of opinion regarding Yazeed. That is the reason he neither praised him, nor condemned him.  
 
Islam believes in fostering unity amongst its followers. We should try to unite the Muslim Ummah rather than creating more divisions. If only all Muslims read the Qur’an with understanding and adhere to Sahih Hadith, Inshallah most of these differences would be solved and we could be one united Muslim Ummah. The best way to get the Muslims together is given in the following verse:  
 
“And hold fast all together by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you) and be not divided among yourselves;” [Surah Ale Imran 3:103].
  
35. Written by k.Syed on 29-01-2008 11:05
 
 
people who dont believe in basic of(QURAN) iman what we can expect from them.There book ASOOL KAFI is full of material which denies the authenticity of holy book.Instead of zakir naik they should send LAANAT on those writers ,of course that is the worst SIN.I dare all follower of ASOOL KAFI to do this
  
36. Written by Syed Azizul Hasan Zaidi on 31-01-2008 15:36
 
 
There is no other proof required to prove that we are from the family of AhlulBait and followers of true Islam. Yazids are still alive and his family and his blood is still running under the name of Islam. We all should pray that Allah Batufaile Ahlulbait A.S. curse and destroy their prosperity and destroy them like Yazid and KhanaeKaaba and Madina Munwwara, Jannatul Baqi and all Holy shrines of Shias come under control of Shias
  
37. Written by Amir Ajam Khattak Gardezi on 03-02-2008 05:45
 
 
Salam to every Muslim.One thing is crystal clear that Imam Hussian[r] was on right and Yazid was traynic and fasiq,Hussian cleaned the yazidiyat[batil]by his blood,Hussian today is the symbol of bravery and yazid is a word used as like a abusing one,Hussianism is for whole world,Muslim, not only for Sunnis or Shias.Crusing Yazid is bearing no benefit coz why why and why we should match yazid with Hussian.As Quran says from darkness to the enlighment,so yazid and his act is face of darkness and Hussian is enlighting star,if someone wants to prove who is right or wroung then there is enough proof lies in Matryedom of Hussian.Some Sunnis and Shias are in arguments for no reason,no benefit,lets be together and take Hussian message as a strong wake up call agianst anti Islamic forces operating inside and outside Islamic world world.If we failed and blaming each other then we havnt got Husssian any more to stop it and Yazidis are still at large,i m afriad the Holy war which was won by Hussian we gonna lose it,infact we are the loseing ones,be a realistic and think wisely in intra Muslim war we are loseing more as compared to war with anti Islamic forces.stick to the teaching of Quran,Muhammad[pbuh] respect and love to Ahlubait and Sahab Karams Of Muhammad is key to succuss.Inshallah
  
38. Written by REAL_PICTURE on 08-02-2008 12:12
 
 
many hadith from Bukhari clearly states that so many PIOUS sahaba accepted his BAYAH,IF he was so and so ,then how come so many and so highly ranked sahaba were compromising with yazeed,its beyond the great sahabah's character.. 
.Even sahabi like ibn umar was with him SEE hadith bukhari vol.9 Book 88 hadith 227...My question is HOW COME SO MANY AND SO PIOUS GRAET SAHABA WERE ON HIS SIDE....THINK HONESTLY AND LEAVE SHIAS WHOS BELIEVE IS THAT ALL THE SAHABAS WERE MUNAFIQ((ASTAGHFIRULLAH).WE should concentrate on more imp issues and stick to the quran and sunnah,and shouldn,t lost in historical fabrications.believing in destorted history brings doubt about sahaba like ibn umar.WHY not take the history which is more sensable...Like ibn kather mention in BIDAWANIHAYA that Mohammad bin hanfiya, HUSSAIN'S(RA)BROTHER praise yazeed and told about his good qualities 
add a comment
  
39. Written by Mua'awiya on 23-02-2008 13:07
 
 
I swear by him in whose created everything with His Might,that Al-Hussain r.a placed three options when he came to know about the reality such as 1)muslims gave amir Yazid(rahimullah) bayyat,2) laeen shias betrayed Hussain r.a. So the grandson of prophet pbuh placed three options,and Yazid didnt order to kill hussain r.a but he ordered to stop rebellion.So Hussain r.a placed three options. Allaahuakbar source says: Now Hussain was in a dilemma should he continue his journey towards Kufa or return to Makkah? The Arab tradition of avenging the murder of their man, at all costs, was too strong for him to resist. Besides, the close relatives of Muslim Ibn Aqeel , who were accompanying Hussain , declared their resolve to punish the assassins and continue their march. For Hussain , it was below his dignity to abandon them and return to Makkah. So, he decided to continue his march to Kufa. Meanwhile Auon and Mohammad, the two young sons of Abdullah Ibn Jaffer Tayyar, a cousin of Hussain , arrived with their father’s message: "For God’s sake, don’t go to Kufa." However, Hussain continued his journey with these two boys joining his camp and arrived at the desert of Karbala. Ibn Ziad, the governor of Kufa, arrived there with one thousand soldiers under his command and offered one option to Hussain in accordance with the instruction from Ameer Yazeed: "You can neither go to Kufa nor return to Makkah, but you can go any where else you want." Obviously, the only course open for Hussain was to Damascus, the capital. It is very unfortunate that he turned down the offer and continued his sojourn at Karbala trying to win over the support of Ibn Ziad’s men because in his addresses to the Kufis under Ibn Ziad’s command, he mentioned the persons by name who had written letters to him pledging loyalty and support and pleaded with them to honor their pledges. The Kufis, fearing the possibility of ensuing persecution and punishment, disowned their letters and denied their authorship. 
 
Meanwhile, a reinforcement of four thousand soldiers, under the command of Amar Ibn Sa‘d, arrived at Kufa from Damascus. Amar was the son of Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqas , the conqueror of Iran, and was also related to Hussain for whom he had all the sympathies. Talks of reconciliation continued but the Kufis, fearing reprisals in case of a reconciliation, forced their leader Ibn Zaid to toughen his attitude. Realizing this, Hussain placed three options before them: "Allow me to return to Makkah safely, or allow me to proceed to the frontiers of the Muslim empire so that I may continue my campaign against non-Muslims, or allow me a safe passage to the capital, Damascus, where I may settle the issue with Ameer Yazeed in person." 
 
Lanat on shias,they betrayed Ali,then betrayed his son sayyid al hassan r.a,then al-hussain r.a became their next victum. 
 
http://allaahuakbar.in/muharram/tragedy_of_karbala.htm
  
40. Written by Mua'awiya on 23-02-2008 13:14
 
 
May Allah put us in the day of judgement with people like: Abu Bakr siddiq,Umar ibn al khattab r.a,Ali ibn abi talib r.a,Abu sufyan ibn harb r.a and Muawiya ibn sufyan r.a and all sahaba. 
May Allah put the shias with their loved ones: Cyrus 'the great'al ,killer of Umar r,killer of Uthman r.a,ex-shia killer of Ali r.a and shia killer of al-hussain r.a . 
May Allah curse shias,the cowards who betrayed Ali,Hassan and Hussain radiyallah anhum.Now they want to mourn his death because they feel quilty!
  
41. Written by Shikoh on 29-02-2008 23:46
 
 
Oh, Mua'awiya, how stupid you are! What a preposterous set of posts you have published. 
 
If the Imam was hell-bent on living up to the Arab tradition of avenging one of his men's murder, then tell us on the basis of which tradition did he take his children and womenfolk to help exact vengeance. 
 
Show me one tradition, even a wicked fictitious Arabic folk tale, in which a man burning with revenge, takes along his family to execute the revenge! 
 
Ah! 
 
But I suddenly see that Mua'awiya and his progeny (within which I safely include you) being true to their tradition, will indeed concoct some fictitious folktale to the effect! 
 
Go on, mate. You must live up to your birthright. 
 
P.S. 
By the way, reference revering all and sundry companions of the Holy Prophet, then do remember good ol' Abu Lahab in your humble prayers even though he is the one man (along with his wife) who is so vehemently cursed by Allah in the Quran ... go on and praise him too because according to your definitions, all those who saw the prophet and lived in his time were sahabas and therefore pious and praiseworthy. 
 
SubhanAllah. 
 
I can't help myself from being more ascerbic in this second-time post of mine - The opposite of the word 'up' is 'down'. The opposite of the word 'inside' is 'outside' etc. 
 
But the opposite of 'knowledge' should not be 'ignorance'. The opposite of 'logical' should not be 'illogical'. The opposite of 'intelligent' should not be 'foolish'. 
 
The opposite of knowledge, logical, intelligent should be one word: ... sunni!
  
42. Written by Shikoh on 02-03-2008 04:58
 
 
"K. Syed" read my post carefully again. 
 
And read "Peshawar Nights." 
 
The gentleman has talked.
  
43. Written by K.SYED on 04-03-2008 16:43
 
 
KHOMAINI'S BOOK KASF-UL ASRAR  
TAHREEF (deliberate alteration of words to change the meaning of the holy books, namely, the Bible, etc.) is that fault which Muslims accuse Jews and Christians of indulging in, has proved to be found in the Ashaabs (of Rasoolullah - sallal laahu alaihi wasallam)."  
(KASHFUL ASRAR, PAGE 114) 
 
 
"It was easy for the Ashaabs (of Rasoolullah - sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) to remove verses from the Holy Quran and deliberately add verses to it, and in this way forever concealing from the people of the world the true Quran."  
(KASHFUL ASRAR, PAGE 114 
 
Yes, the above shocking statements are in Khomeini’s book. Yet, it is the firm belief of the Muslims that the Holy Quran is the direct Word of Almighty Allah. The Holy Quran has been protected from any type of changes, removals and additions of verses or increase in volume, by Almighty Allah Himself. 
 
But, in the corrupt Shia propagation of Islam, the present day Quran is accepted as a changed version like the Tauraat and the Bible. And according to Mr. Khomeini, the Sahaba-i-Kiraam of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) had prevented the entire world from gaining access to the original Quran. MA’AAZALLAH! Allah forbid. 
HOW U CAN EXPECT ANY GOOD FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAS THESE BELIEVES???  
TERRIFYING BELIEFS OF SHI'ITES 
Allaah often lies and does mistakes. (usool-e-kaafi, page #328, yaqoob kulaini, vol1).  
The Munafiqeen (i.e. Sahaba) took very much out of Quran (took out the verses). (Ihtijaj-e-tibri, page #382).  
When Imaam Mehdi comes he will bring with him the real and original Quran. (Ahsan-ul-maqaal, page #336, safdar Husain najfi).  
The person who says that the present Quran is complete is a liar because the “complete Quran” was compiled by Hazrat Ali. (Fasl-ul-khitaab fee tahreef kitaab rab-ul- arbab, page #4, Noori Tibri).  
Abu Bakr is kafir and the one who loves Abu Bakr is also kafir. (Faq-ul-yaqeen, page #690, Baqar majlisi).  
Abu Bakr was kafir and Zandeeq. (Kashf-ul-asrar, page #69, khamini).  
There is no difference in Abu Bakr and mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani. (Jagir fidk, page #690, Ghulam Husain najfi).  
Neither we believe the Allah nor the Prophet of the God whose khalifah is Abu Bakr. (Anwar-ul-nomania, page #278).  
I don’t believe in that Allah who gives government to Usman and Ma’avia. (Kashf-ul-asrar, page #107, Khamini).  
Umar was a real kafir and Zandeeq. (Kashf-ul-asrar, Khaminee, page #119).  
When imam Mehdi comes he will make alive Hazrat Aa'ishah from death and whip her. (Tafseer saafi, line 16, page #108).  
Abu Bakr and Umar were agents of Iblees. (Hulyat-ul-mateen, mulla baqar majlisi).  
Hazrat Khalid bin Walid was not saif-ullah but saif-us-shaitaan. (Manazir-o-baghdad, page #100).  
All the Prophets will become alive from dead and start the jihad under the leadership of Hazrat Ali. (Tafseer ayyashee, page #181).  
Real Quran that is compiled by Hazrat Ali will come with imam Mehdi. (Anwar-ul-nomania, page #360).  
All Prophets are beggar at the doorstep of Ali. (khalqat-e-norania, page #201, Talib Husain karpalwi).  
All the prophets and Angels are the slaves of the 12 imams except Mohammad (saw). (kaleed manaazra, page #35, barkat ali).  
12 imams are the teachers of all Prophets except Mohammad (saw). (Majmoa-e-majalis, page #29).  
When imam Mehdi comes he will hang Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar at the holy grave of Hazrat Mohammad (saw). (Majma-ul-ma’arif, page #49).  
If Gabriel and Mekael had loved Abu Bakr then they would have been in hell too. (Ameer mukhtar, page #8, mirza basharat Husain).  
After the death of Hazrat Mohammad (saw) all the Sahaba become MURTAD except three. (Roza-e-kafee, page #245)  
Hazrat Anas Bin Malik, Abu huraira, Amr bin Aas, Ameer Ma’avia and Aa'ishah were worst people of all times. (Makalmaat-e-husainia, page #59).  
Man can have Nikah (marriage) with man and his mother, sister and daughter too. (Firqa-ul-shiat, Abi Mohammad-ul-Hasan Bin Moosa).  
Hazrat Abu Bakr was Mushrik, Umar was Munafiq and Usman was Kafir. (Shia’an-e-ali aur inn kee shaan, page #54, ghulam husain najfi).  
When imam Mehdi come he will be nude and the first person who Bay’ah him is Mohammad (saw). (Haq-ul-yaqeen, page #347, Baqar majlisi).  
Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) was the leader of the Munafiqeen Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prayed for the murder of Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu).  
The day on which Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu), was murdered by the Persian kafir, Lu'lu', is  
(hypocrites).  
 
 
NO.2 
 
AL-KAFI  
Here we have Usool al- Kafi that is a collection narrations and traditions attributed to the Shiite Imams, Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet. Al-Kafi is the MOST reliable Shia Book, as the reliable Shia Scholars said and declared . Its author is Thiqat al-Islam Muhamad Ibn Yaqoob AlKulayni (A VERY reliable Shia Scholar, died in 328 H). Some Shi'ites scholars believe usool Al-Kafi was presented to the legendary Imam Qaem who liked it and said: "It suffices our Shi'ites" (al-Tharee'ah ela Tasaneef al-Shi'a: Agha Buzurg al-Tahraani; vol.17, p.245)  
Al-Kafi is a collection of Hadiths attributed to the prophet Muhamad p.b.u.h and The Infallible Imams -according to Shia- and like AhlSunnah, who give much importance to their Hadith book (Saheeh AlBukhari), Shia give the same or maybe even more importance to their Book (Al-Kafi) . Unlike AhlSunnah who call AlBukhari's Book as (Saheeh AlBukhari), Shia do not call Al-Kafi as (Saheeh Al-Kafi), nevertheless, Shia treat Al-Kafi as it is (Saheeh) and their most reliable scholars declare it as a (Saheeh) .  
Ironically we find Mr. Mulla Baqir Majlisi stating in his commentary on al-Kafi, named Mir'at al-'Uqul, that 9,485 out of the 16,121 narrations in al-Kafi are unreliable! Now here we reach two conclusions, either Imam Qaem made a mistake to authenticate a book, 60% of whose contents would later be discovered to be unreliable or Mr. Mulla Baqir Majlisi (the most reliable and respected Shia Scholars ever existed) did not know what he was talking about.  
 
Any way Here are some of the Shia most reliable Scholars' sayings about Al-Kafi : 
 
[1] AlHur Al'amily said "The authors of the Four Books of shia (Al-Kafi , AlIstibsaar , AlTahzeeb , Mun La YahDuruHu Alfaqeeh) have testified that the Hadiths of their books are accurate (saheeh) , firm and well conducted from the roots that all shia agreed on , and if you consider those scholars (the authors of the four books) are reliable then you must accept their sayin